fuel cell cars = doable
November 11, 2006 8:44 PM   Subscribe

(relatively) cheap fuel-cell cars.
posted by js003 (15 comments total)
 
Lack of scale is the primary reason for the high costs of fuel cell vehicles.

duh?


GM is striving to minimize the requirement of the costly platinum used in its...etc.

GM makes a pepsi blue color car?


catalyst-thrift technology

haha, those thrifty catalysts..


Hybrids and bio-fuel vehicles are important bridges to hydrogen fuel cells..


um.. they use totally different technologies


As for Honda's FCX fuel cell concept, Burns said he sees it as a formidable rival.

uh oh.. competition.. who's gonna win? who's gonna win?


The Chevrolet Sequel, showcased at the GM Tech Tour in Shanghai

oh, ok.. whew.. worried there for a second.
posted by dminor at 9:11 PM on November 11, 2006


Why do you hate america(n car companies)?
posted by IronLizard at 10:25 PM on November 11, 2006



Hybrids and bio-fuel vehicles are important bridges to hydrogen fuel cells..

um.. they use totally different technologies


No shit? You're a fucking genius! Unless you just missed the point entirely: A way to reduce dependency and pollution during the conversion to a new fuel source.
posted by IronLizard at 10:27 PM on November 11, 2006


b1tr0t, you are obviously unaware of the great hydrogen lakes. i think they're in pipe dream city, nevada.
posted by Hat Maui at 11:21 PM on November 11, 2006


I'm hoping that with all the VC from the tech companies being funneled into solar and other alternative energy sources can push their cost down a good deal and we can skip directly to electric plug in cars.

Put some solar cells on the roof of the car to charge it while you're inside shopping (I say this of course because I live in a desert and there is an abundance of solar energy available 90% of the time).

Its really all about bumping up how efficient the cells are. String a bunch of cells together to get 200V and feed it into the battery. If the roof of your car or SUV is 4 sq meters thats 1000W of power at peak (I think, its late and my math might not be right... 1000 W/m^2 peak, 25% efficient). To put that in real terms, you leave your car outside at work for 8 hours, and that'll provide you about 15-20mi (at 400Wh per mile, which is the upper end of usage for electric cars).

I dont know about you, but my commute is less that 20 miles to get home. So while I'd have to charge it overnight at home, I'd get a whole bunch of free power while I work. Estimating my commute, having a small motor as a backup burning fuel and only going with the energy from the roof of my car I'd end up using about one gallon of gas per week. Maybe two if I go somewhere on the weekend. A pretty good deal.
posted by SirOmega at 11:28 PM on November 11, 2006


SirOmega and b1tr0t,

You're both right! (Dontcha love it when things work out like that?)

The Wiki's showing an average number (that is, it includes nighttime) and it looks like it's assuming about a 15% efficiency.

You aren't going to get 1000W peak in the contig US thanks to atmospheric losses and slant angle knocks off about half of what's left I'd guess, but if SirOmega finds a 25% efficient cell and only charges his car during the day, peak power should be closer to ~125 W/m2

This average, of course, will vary with the seasons (less slant/more power in summer, more slant/less power in winter.)
posted by Opposite George at 12:23 AM on November 12, 2006


If biofuels like sugarcane ethanol and algae biodiesel work well, then hydrogen power is unnecessary.

Sure, but you aren't gonna be running the fermenter on nuclear power, are you? In 5-10 years, nuclear will be a viable option for new power plants in the US again, and then we'll be talking about hydrogen more (subject to no new total breakaway advances in any of the above-mentioned technologies).
posted by rxrfrx at 4:03 AM on November 12, 2006


Do you know how many nuclear power plants would be required to power the US vehicle fleet with hydrogen, and how many Yucca Mountain equivalents would needed per year to deal with the waste they would produce?

Also there seems to be this popular view that nuclear power is economically viable - it's the dirty secret of the industry that they only exist because of heavy government subsidy. No one will insure them because the liability potential is so high - tax payers are the insurance company, tax payers pay if there is a nuclear accident, the costs of which are potentially unlimited. In return the nuclear power companies are able to profit with no concern of liability costs. No other industry has that protection.
posted by stbalbach at 8:08 AM on November 12, 2006


Now that I'm awake, I checked the raw data for the 3MW solar panel installation I have a hand in taking care of and it shows that this week there was a maximum irradiation of 640W/m^2. Which isnt too bad. Earlier this summer, the all time max irradiation is 1100+W/m^2.

Regardless, a 25% efficient cell over 4m^2 would capture 640W. Less than the 1000W i said above, but again, if you left it outside at work (which I have to anyways) you'd be up to 5120Wh, or 12.8mi. Its all about finding a cell that gives real world 25% efficiency. My data seems to indicate that our cells are on average about 14% efficient.
posted by SirOmega at 9:19 AM on November 12, 2006


Hydrogen isn't a fuel source, any more than electricity is. If your Electric or Hydrogen economy is driven by coal, then coal is still your ultimate power source (or the sunlight, if you want to be extremely pedantic about it).

Here we go again. Does your car currently run on nuclear power? No? Then to automobiles, it's a new fuel source. Coal would be new to the modern day automobile, as well. We're not talking about steam driven cars here, now are we?
1. Take everything out of context
2. make entirely inapplicable argument about the overall 'newness' of fuel cells
3. call *ME* pedantic
4. Oh, right. This is metafilter. Carry on.

If biofuels like sugarcane ethanol and algae biodiesel work well, then hydrogen power is unnecessary.
posted by IronLizard at 2:19 PM on November 12, 2006


I drive a Hybrid and I love it. I don't feel like I'm sacrificing anything - it's bigger than my old compact car, performs nicely, and is roomy, comfortable, and quiet. It also has all of the options I could want. I would probably choose it for the comfort & styling even if it wasn't a hybrid.
posted by mike3k at 2:36 PM on November 12, 2006


No, I don't know. Thanks for telling me, stbalbach! You're a great guy.
posted by rxrfrx at 6:01 PM on November 12, 2006


The problem is not that the cars we drive are inefficient. The problem is that our cities are structured in such a way that we have to drive cars everywhere. Moving the fossil-fuel consumption one step up the consumer ladder doesn't solve anything, it just hides the environmental impact from the user. We need better methods of transport, and more cyclists and walkers, not these machined exercises in self-delusion.

However, if by some stroke of luck, breakthroughs in ethanol and biodiesel production make them economically viable and efficient alternatives to gas- or hydrogen-powered or electric vehicles, then I may be completely wrong.
posted by tehloki at 2:29 AM on November 13, 2006


"you aren't gonna be running the fermenter on nuclear power, are you?"

I run my fermenters on yeast. (your point is well taken, but it's worth pointing out that many sugarcane mills are able to generate most, if not all, of the power they need for processing through burning the bagasse and other waste. The efficient ones can sell excess power to the grid. Corn ethanol is of course a very different story)
posted by nickmark at 10:22 AM on November 14, 2006


Moving the fossil-fuel consumption one step up the consumer ladder doesn't solve anything, it just hides the environmental impact from the user.

It solves plenty - net emissions can be orders of magnitude lower. An electric car running on coal saves on both energy and emissions in so many ways it's staggering.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:39 PM on November 14, 2006


« Older Rumsfeld: War Crimes Charges   |   Scifi magazine covers, 1930-today Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments